This is latest in a long line of E petitions to No 10 Downing Street. This one is in need of some support. Mudcat has been very helpful with the previous ones and Mudcatter's support can make the difference again.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop criminalising live music with the Licensing Act, and to support amendments backed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the music industry, which would exempt most small-scale performances in schools, hospitals, restaurants and licensed premises.

Under the Licensing Act, a performance by one musician in a bar, restaurant, school or hospital not licensed for live music could lead to a criminal prosecution of those organising the event. Even a piano may count as a licensable 'entertainment facility'. By contrast, amplified big screen broadcast entertainment is exempt. The government says the Act is necessary to control noise nuisance, crime, disorder and public safety, even though other laws already deal with those risks. Musicians warned the Act would harm small events. About 50% of bars and 75% of restaurants have no live music permission. Obtaining permission for the mildest live music remains costly and time-consuming. In May, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended exemptions for venues up to 200 capacity and for unamplified performance by one or two musicians. The government said no. But those exemptions would restore some fairness in the regulation of live music and encourage grassroots venues.

On a related matter, since the petition mentions performances in schools, I've now had clarification from the DCSF that performances in schools after school hours will not require the performers to be registered under the government's new Vetting and Barring Scheme which comes into force next year. So bands playing for PTA barn dances, for example, won't need to be registered.

"The description of music in any advertisements should be taken into account. For example, advertisements saying "live jazz tonight" will generally indicate that the music is incidental, where as advertising a named band will generally mean it is a licensable activity, as the strength of the name will attract the public and therefore it becomes the primary purpose for going to that premises.

The music is likely to be licensable if those present at the premises are arranged as an audience, compared to customers seated as diners, for example.

Incidental music does not have to be just "background" music. There should not be an expectation for the public to be able to hold a normal conversation without having to raise their voices – for example, the music at horse guards' parades, where it would be impossible to hold a conversation without talking louder than normal."

----Elsewhere in the same document it makes it clear that if the music is loud - it then becomes licensable!

This guidance may not be good news but the subjective judgements that licensing officers will be advised to make and the difficlulty the public have in challenging these, is very good ammunition to support the urgent need for an effective exemption for live music.

Which is why it is so important that this current E petition is supported.

Announcing the new incidental music guidance for local authorities on 23rd November, Chris White, chair of the LGA Culture Committee, spoke warmly of pianists in bars:

'Councils are keen to support their local businesses and venues, particularly during the recession. Introducing background music to a restaurant or allowing a pianist to perform in a bar adds to the atmosphere of a place, and often doesn't require a licence. Making sure everyone knows about this common sense approach should make the process easier for everyone.'

In fairness, this is a confused area of the legislation and one that the government recently promised to amend. Speaking in the Westminster Hall licensing debate on 22nd October, licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe said:

It included this quote from assistant general secretary Horace Trubridge:

'We want to see venues using the incidental music exception as an initial foray into putting on live music. If it works for the venue, then the next step would be to have regulated entertainment added to the licence. For instance, if a restaurant tries some live jazz on a Wednesday then wants to extend it to other nights and advertise the acts, it could do so through the minor variations process, which is much cheaper and quicker than applying for a full variation.'

There was no mention of the union's position on new exemptions, or indeed their policy position that live music should be outside the licensing regime altogether. Read without this context, as it would be by many journalists, the statement could readily be taken as an endorsement, in principle, for the licensing regime as it stands.

It is of course in members' interests that the MU pursues every available means of increasing work opportunities. Working with DCMS and the Local Government Association to that end is not merely desirable, but obligatory.

These pragmatic alliances do not mean, however, that the case for exemptions must be suppressed. Indeed, if the union were committed to the case for new exemptions, this message would surely be reinforced at every opportunity.

Despite input from the Musicians Union and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the abiding impression is of someone holding a dangerous snake at arms length. The benefits of live music are rarely cited, and where they are, they read as though delivered through gritted teeth:

'We are aware of incidental music examples such as a keyboard player in a restaurant, a jazz guitarist in a cafe and a new group using the local pub as a nursery venue, that have enhanced the cultural activities of an area.'

Worse than this, however, the guidance fails at a fundamental level. Its aim was to clarify the legislation, but it achieves the opposite. Examples given of gigs that would or would not qualify as 'incidental music' reinforce the absurdity of the law, and will undoubtedly cause confusion. Consider the following:

Exempt: a pub promoting a stand-up comedian accompanied by a pianist. Licensable: a pub promoting a performance by a pianist/singer supported by a stand-up comedian.

Exempt: pub with pianist or other single instrument playing background music. Licensable: pub promotes a sing-along event with pianist.

What coherent regulatory rationale informs these differences? On what rational grounds should any of the licensable examples deserve criminalisation unless licensed? The potential for noise nuisance, offered as the main reason for regulation, would seem to be the same in both the licensable and exempt entertainments.

Elsewhere in the guidance it suggests that incidental music means 'there should be no expectation to listen or to watch', and that 'the public must be allowed to talk during the performance.'

This ludicrous nonsense was launched with a clutch of cringeworthy quotes, of which by far the saddest must be this from Danny Longstaff, chair of the Musicians Union executive committee:

'This is excellent news. At last we have some real clarity about this area of the licensing act which will be of great benefit to musicians and venues alike.'

Live music campaigner Roger Gall put it more clearly: 'This document may not be good news for the incidental music exemption but it is good ammunition for a new one'.

In press interviews, Sutcliffe repeatedly claimed that the government wanted to act 'very quickly' on the small venue exemption, and on Tuesday 10th November, actually claimed this would be 'done before the election':http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8352682.stm [BBC Daily Politics, 10/11/09, key quotes from about 3'45" minutes onwards]

Sources close to the minister suggest that resistance to speedy implementation is coming not only from the usual suspects (local authorities and police), but also from senior licensing civil servants. This despite the fact that the DCMS licensing team and ministers have been making public announcements about the intention to hold a small venue exemption consultation since 2007.

In his BBC Daily Politics interview of 10th November, Sutcliffe also said that his department had written to opposition parties about his small venues exemption proposal. But it would seem these letters have yet to be received.

Mr White and his council's treatment of live music has already come to the attention of the licensing minister. Restrictions on live music in St Albans were raised during the Westminster Hall licensing debate of 22nd October. During the debate, Mr Sutcliffe suggested to Liberal Democrat MP Richard Younger-Ross that his party might help bring Mr White into line:

'I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman [Richard Younger-Ross] for raising the concerns felt by local government and the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services—LACORS. He has an opportunity to help us because Councillor Chris White, who is a lead member of the Local Government Association on these issues, is a Liberal Democrat. His authority, St. Albans, and its attitude to some of these issues, has been mentioned today. We can get this provision through if we have all-party support. I will be looking for the support of the hon. Gentleman to ensure that people such as Councillor White follow what he suggests.'http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091022/halltext/91022h0004.htm

But Mr White's comments today not only put him in opposition to Lib Dems in Parliament, but also for the first time place the LGA in direct public opposition to the government on this issue.

His statements were made in the wake of an LGA poll of licensing officers which apparently found that 90% believe a new exemption would lead to more noise complaints.

As usual, however, the LGA is silent on the range of legislation already available irrespective of licensing to tackle noise from pubs or indeed any other premises. This includes pre-emptive or reactive noise abatement notices under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, fines under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, and fines under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (which covers noise nuisance coming from a dwelling or garden between 11pm and 7am).

Mr White has also missed the point that a new exemption would not only benefit pubs, but potentially any small venue considering having some live music. The Licensing Act defines premises as 'any place'. A new exemption could help schools, hospitals, care homes, village halls and a host of other places where live music could be a regular secondary activity.

On this site, you can tell the DCMS exactly what you think of the proposals in their consultation period set up for that purpose.

Whether they take any notice or not is questionable. The specific proposal to remove the three-yearly review of SOLPs, is being driven by those bodies who feel inconvenienced by the legislation's requirements.

Would that we all could move in this way to change aspects of legislation that inconvenienced us. The current requirement gives the public a voice every three years on local licensing policy. I suggest that voice is used in this consultation to ensure that voice is not silenced by those bodies who may find this inconvenient.

'Instead of basing arguments on rational fact and legitimate research, it is faintly absurd that the LGA instead raises a moral panic of sleeping babies being awoken by the volume of heavy metal gigs," Sharkey said.

He was responding to the claim made last week by LGA that noise complaints would increase if the government brought in a new entertainment licensing exemption for small gigs:

In his riposte today, Sharkey points out that live music is way down the list of noise complaints:

"[one study found] twice as many complaints about burglar alarms, three times more complaints about barking dogs and almost thirteen times more complaints about neighbours playing the stereo too loudly than there ever were about live music".

Despite many requests over the past 8 years, neither the government nor the LGA has ever produced any evidence that live music is a significant source of noise complaints. And on 11th November 2009, the government finally conceded that other legislation regulates the potential risks:

'... One reason the Government are considering an exemption [for small gigs] is that other legislation exists to tackle noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. In addition, we propose to create a power to revoke exemptions if there are problems at specific premises.'

Lord Clement-Jones' live music bill is to get a full debate in the House of Lords on Friday 15th January 2010, probably in the afternoon: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm#order [scroll down]

If enacted it would amend the Licensing Act to exempt a range of small gigs: in alcohol-licensed premises up to 200 capacity, up to midnight, subject to review if there are problems. in hospitals, schools and colleges with up to 200 audience/participants and providing alcohol is not being sold. anywhere by one or two musicians, unamplified or minimally amplified. The bill includes an amendment to permit amplified music accompanying morris and similar dancing (the current exemption only applies when the dancing is accompanied by unamplified live music).

The bill also proposes a definition of 'minimal amplification' which would allow amplification to be used by one or two performers, provided it does not predominate over unamplified instruments. The wording was derived in part from the discussion of music volume already set out in the 'incidental music' section of the government's Licensing Guidance, paragraph 3.22 (secondary legislation that accompanies the Act): http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/RevisedGuidanceJune2007.pdf

The debate will include a response from a government minister or spokesperson, but would not conclude with a vote. Provided no hostile amendments are tabled, it would go to a formal Committee stage about two weeks later. If such amendments were tabled, another debate would be required.

Assuming no delays, after a further two weeks the bill would get a formal 3rd reading, and could then go to the House of Commons.

By that time, however, the bill could be thwarted by an imminent general election - the same obstacle facing the government with its yet to be fulfilled promise of swift action on a small gigs exemption consultation.

Despite this, the live music bill, which is supported by UK Music, represents an invaluable opportunity to keep the case for exemptions on the Parliamentary and media agenda.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop criminalising live music with the Licensing Act, and to support amendments backed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the music industry, which would exempt most small-scale performances in schools, hospitals, restaurants and licensed premises. More details

Submitted by Phil Little of Live Music Forum – Deadline to sign up by: 27 July 2010 – Signatures: 16,948

The above has been closed during the election. The following information is now appearing.

The new administration is currently assessing how best to proceed with the e-petitions service. We will update users as soon as practicable.

'Currently the Coalition Government is reviewing the situation concerning live music performance at smaller venues, and the Minister for Tourism and Heritage, John Penrose MP, is considering the result of the Consultation on Live Music which closed in March. The Coalition is committed to cutting Red Tape, to encourage live music and is keen to find the best way forward. A number of options are being considered and the Minister will make an announcement in due course.'